Advertisements

On Friday, 17 January 2014 17:11:24 UTC+2, Nick Baumbach wrote:
> Does anybody use Boost code, what is it.

Boost is collection of about hundred of quite fine open source C++
libraries. Majority of C++ developers have at least tried some of
those.
> I mean, it has to make things easier, but it does not looks like, since it
> takes hours to compile.

Most of boost libraries are header only; you just #include files to use
them in your program. If particular boost library makes things easier or
not depends on if your program needs to do what it does or not.

There are only about dozen of boost libraries that have compiled binary
parts and handful that have optional compiled binary parts. If you don't
even know what boost is and if you need those libraries for anything
then what is the point of compiling them? Also I'm pretty sure that you
can find built binaries from net like with any other open source.

On 1/17/2014 10:11 AM, Nick Baumbach wrote:
> Does anybody use Boost code, what is it.
>
> I mean, it has to make things easier, but it does not looks like, since it
> takes hours to compile.

Plenty of people use Boost code. It does make things easier. If you
don't like it, don't use it. There is very little value in complaining
about something for which you don't have any use, or on which you don't
have any intention to spend any of your precious time.

Here is an analogy: it takes significant time to earn money to buy a car
and to learn to drive one. But once you buy it and start using it, you
often find that it does make your life easier. It's called "investment".

If you think that a few hours of compilation is not worth the return
that you might get from using Boost after you have prepared it for your
use, then don't spend those few hours. Life's too short.

n wrote:
> On 17.01.2014 16:11, Nick Baumbach wrote:
>> Does anybody use Boost code, what is it.
>>
>> I mean, it has to make things easier, but it does not looks like, since
>> it takes hours to compile.
>>
>>
> You can use the header-only sub-libraries without building Boost.
>
> However, the most useful of them are now part of the standard, e.g.
> shared_ptr.

n wrote:
> If you think that a few hours of compilation is not worth the return
> that you might get from using Boost after you have prepared it for your
> use, then don't spend those few hours. Life's too short.

Can't you read, how do one knows that Boosts code is needed. What can
Boost do, I can'd do simpler and ergo, faster.

On 1/17/2014 10:49 AM, Nick Baumbach wrote:
> n wrote:
>
>> On 17.01.2014 16:11, Nick Baumbach wrote:
>>> Does anybody use Boost code, what is it.
>>>
>>> I mean, it has to make things easier, but it does not looks like, since
>>> it takes hours to compile.
>>>
>>>
>> You can use the header-only sub-libraries without building Boost.
>>
>> However, the most useful of them are now part of the standard, e.g.
>> shared_ptr.
>
> How do I know whether I need it.

I think the guiding principle here is "if you need to ask, you probably
have no use for it. Yet."

Here is the metaphor I think is applicable here. Can you dig a ditch
using your spade? Would an excavator help? Not really, if a ditch is
but a few feet long and a foot deep and the soil is loose and light.
You would only use an excavator if the amount of work warrants it. Of
course, if you already have an excavator on site, using it to move even
a bit of earth costs you almost nothing and can save some time, compared
to digging with a spade, even a mere few cubic feet of dirt.

Read about Boost, learn about the problems people solved using it. Some
here might tell you about it, but using Boost's online forum is probably
more effective. If you find that you can solve some problem with it,
then get it, invest some time learning it. Or don't.

n wrote:
> Read about Boost, learn about the problems people solved using it. Some
> here might tell you about it, but using Boost's online forum is probably
> more effective. If you find that you can solve some problem with it,
> then get it, invest some time learning it. Or don't.

And now please answer the question. Only if you can, I did not asked for
noise.

On 1/17/2014 12:01 PM, Nick Baumbach wrote:
> n wrote:
>
>> Read about Boost, learn about the problems people solved using it. Some
>> here might tell you about it, but using Boost's online forum is probably
>> more effective. If you find that you can solve some problem with it,
>> then get it, invest some time learning it. Or don't.
>
> And now please answer the question. Only if you can, I did not asked for
> noise.

Guest

On Friday, January 17, 2014 9:37:16 AM UTC-6, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>
> You can use the header-only sub-libraries without building Boost.
>
>
> However, the most useful of them are now part of the standard, e.g.
> shared_ptr.
>

I think std::array would be a better example. I still
don't find much need for shared_ptr.

wrote:
> On Friday, January 17, 2014 9:37:16 AM UTC-6, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>
>> You can use the header-only sub-libraries without building Boost.
>>
>>
>> However, the most useful of them are now part of the standard, e.g.
>> shared_ptr.
>>
>
> I think std::array would be a better example. I still
> don't find much need for shared_ptr.

Robert Wessel wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:56:47 -0600, Paavo Helde
> <> wrote:
>
>> Robert Wessel <> wrote in
>> news::
>>
>>> And just what part (or all) of Boost is going to require hours of
>>> compilation time? Sounds like a troll to me...
>>
>> Figuring out how to get the bjam (or b2 or whatever it is called nowadays)
>> compilation to work and then building all possible variants
>> (static/dynamic/debug/nodebug/32-bit/64-bit/static runtime/dynamic runtime
>> etc) of all existing compilable Boost libraries can indeed take hours on a
>> mediocre machine. Not that it's needed for anything, it's just the simplest
>> approach if someone has no idea what he wants.
>
>
> For grins, I just did a "bootstrap" / ".\b2" of a freshly downloaded
> Boost 1.55.0 on an eight year old 2.8GHz dual core Pentium 4 (a
> Pentium D), rotating disk, 4GB, WinXP, and running some other stuff as
> well (so both cores were maxing out at times). I'm not sure how much
> more mediocre we can practically get.
>
> Wall clock was 53 minutes. And that's long by a bit, since I was away
> from the PC when the bootstrap finished, but from the look of the time
> stamps, about two minutes, and as I mentioned, I was using the machine
> for other things as well. So let's call it 50 minutes on that
> machine.
>
> Admittedly MSVC is usually a faster compiler than GCC...

Wow, -j 32 !! Say no more. Where did you find that 32 since at most I only
can find 16, as 2 threads per core. Actually thread core, not real core.
An i7 is still a 4 core, not sure how that threaded core is embedded into
the hardware.

Victor Bazarov wrote
>> And now please answer the question. Only if you can, I did not asked
>> for noise.
>
> Your original post did not contain any questions. It only contained a
> childish whine about the perceived difficulty of compiling Boost. Learn
> to ask questions. Visit this page:

Sir, you are violating the unwritten rules of usenet, insisting making
noise instead of relating to the issue in the post.

You are insignificant. Read the fucking subject line. Better yet, just
leave.

Drew Lawson wrote:
> Anyway, it was no particular problem. We just told new people (or
> people with new machines) to start it before leaving for the day.
>
>
> (FWIW, I think the OP is yet another usenet performance artist.)

You agree with him that it takes hours then still call him "performance
artist".

Share This Page

Welcome to The Coding Forums!

Welcome to the Coding Forums, the place to chat about anything related to programming and coding languages.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to ask questions about coding or chat with the community and help others.
Sign up now!